QueenZone discussion #1197507

"Music for People who have no interest in music. They are a novelty act in my eyes.....gimmicky tunes/lyrics. Terrible hair/tash, dreadful clothes... http://entertainment.uk.msn.com/music/galleries/gallery.aspx?cp-documentid=1493495151&imageindex=12

Marknow wrote: This place is like a bad episode of Lost....

peterkoz1 wrote: typical yankee journalists they never liked us since we blew them away with another on bites the dust but they bum lick anything thats Irish !!

  rhyeking wrote: Elvis was, as Neil Peart once described, a divine windchime. He did not create the music or write the songs, but in performing it, he made it something greater than most other performers could. He existed at a time when many artists performed songs written and arranged by other people (professionals songwiters were the norm, were widely used and their songs performed by many different artists). There was a massive increase in the popularity of "black" music at the time, by way of jazz, gospel and blues. Black artists were making hits and mainstream record companies gladly had white artist record those song in an attempt to capitalize. But it wasn't that clear cut. White teens in the fifties often preferred the originals. Elvis grew up in the South and was impued with a love of blues and gospel. He didn't rip off black artists, he simply sang the songs he loved, better than most people, and did what everyone was doing (singing the same songs). As a performer, he was the first great natural showman, and every frontman since (Freddie, Bono, whomever) can thank him for setting the standard. In the fifties, it was par for the course to stand politely at the microphone (or sit on the stool) and sing. Elvis shook his hips and danced around and *that* was shocking and new. His record companies and management made Elvis Presley a commodity and a household name, but he could back up the hype with his ability to sing and peform. I'm not even a big Elvis fan, but he is the King of Rock & Roll for a reason, the same way Michael Jackson is the King of Pop for a reason: timing, talent and good publicity.

mike hunt wrote: What does piss me off a little is that the beatles, and elvis, the stones got rich playing black music (the true genious) but these poor genious musician died piss poor.  I'v been listening too the blues lately, guys like howlin wolf, muddy waters. Those cats were truly brilliant for their time. Dare I say it, even more brilliant than the beatles.

rhyeking wrote: People are entitled to their opinions. Record sales and concert attendance speak for themselves. There are artists I think are overrated, but I won't knock them for their success if they worked hard, built up a fan-base and maintain it. Examples of artists I think are overrated (or overblown): U2 (they're decent, but their last few albums have left me cold...Unforgettable Fire...Joshua Tree...R&H...and Achtung, Baby were a stretch of great works, but then I've never been a hardcore fan) Carlos Santana (everyone I talk to seems to think he's some guitar god, but I don't hear it. He's no BM, he's no Mike Oldfield, who I think could plec circles around him) Coldplay (they just sound so vanilla to me...like Oasis years ago, it's en vogue to love Coldplay). The White Strips (I hear a WS song and I get to urge to listen to Zeppelin or Queen or whomever WS chose to sound like on that single. Why do they sound like everyone else? I couldn't name you a WS song if my life depended on it [no, seriously]. Someone has to tell me "What you're hearing is The White Strips, dude.") All this is just my personal opinion. Like whatever you want, or not, it all balances out on the end.

rhyeking wrote: People are entitled to their opinions. Record sales and concert attendance speak for themselves. There are artists I think are overrated, but I won't knock them for their success if they worked hard, built up a fan-base and maintain it. Examples of artists I think are overrated (or overblown): U2 (they're decent, but their last few albums have left me cold...Unforgettable Fire...Joshua Tree...R&H...and Achtung, Baby were a stretch of great works, but then I've never been a hardcore fan)

catqueen wrote:

rhyeking wrote: People are entitled to their opinions. Record sales and concert attendance speak for themselves. There are artists I think are overrated, but I won't knock them for their success if they worked hard, built up a fan-base and maintain it. Examples of artists I think are overrated (or overblown): U2 (they're decent, but their last few albums have left me cold...Unforgettable Fire...Joshua Tree...R&H...and Achtung, Baby were a stretch of great works, but then I've never been a hardcore fan)

Thank you, thank you, thank you! Thank you sincerely from my heart for saying that U2 are 'decent'.  I am surrounded by U2 fans and although I like a few songs and like the idea of U2, they drive me nuts if I have to listen to them for more then a few songs.  And I daren't state my feelings... anyone remember the scene in Highlander when he was kicked out of the villege?!  :) This having been said, I do have a lot of respect for them, and i like the idea of them, and i recognise that they are a good band, but somehow, the reality of their music always lets me down. So thank you Rhyeking.

Queen On Ice wrote:

  catqueen wrote:  

  rhyeking wrote:   People are entitled to their opinions. Record sales and concert attendance speak for themselves. There are artists I think are overrated, but I won't knock them for their success if they worked hard, built up a fan-base and maintain it. Examples of artists I think are overrated (or overblown): U2 (they're decent, but their last few albums have left me cold...Unforgettable Fire...Joshua Tree...R&H...and Achtung, Baby were a stretch of great works, but then I've never been a hardcore fan)  

Thank you, thank you, thank you! Thank you sincerely from my heart for saying that U2 are 'decent'.  I am surrounded by U2 fans and although I like a few songs and like the idea of U2, they drive me nuts if I have to listen to them for more then a few songs.  And I daren't state my feelings... anyone remember the scene in Highlander when he was kicked out of the villege?!  :) This having been said, I do have a lot of respect for them, and i like the idea of them, and i recognise that they are a good band, but somehow, the reality of their music always lets me down. So thank you Rhyeking.

  If it is any consolation, I dislike U2 very much - Oasis too. Both groups very overrated in my opinion.   I can see why they are popular, but I cannot listen to either band myself - barely even one song. Just my opinion though, it is not meant to upset any of their fans.

catqueen wrote:

  Queen On Ice wrote:  

      catqueen wrote:      

      rhyeking wrote:       People are entitled to their opinions. Record sales and concert attendance speak for themselves. There are artists I think are overrated, but I won't knock them for their success if they worked hard, built up a fan-base and maintain it. Examples of artists I think are overrated (or overblown): U2 (they're decent, but their last few albums have left me cold...Unforgettable Fire...Joshua Tree...R&H...and Achtung, Baby were a stretch of great works, but then I've never been a hardcore fan)      

Thank you, thank you, thank you! Thank you sincerely from my heart for saying that U2 are 'decent'.  I am surrounded by U2 fans and although I like a few songs and like the idea of U2, they drive me nuts if I have to listen to them for more then a few songs.  And I daren't state my feelings... anyone remember the scene in Highlander when he was kicked out of the villege?!  :) This having been said, I do have a lot of respect for them, and i like the idea of them, and i recognise that they are a good band, but somehow, the reality of their music always lets me down. So thank you Rhyeking.

      If it is any consolation, I dislike U2 very much - Oasis too. Both groups very overrated in my opinion.       I can see why they are popular, but I cannot listen to either band myself - barely even one song. Just my opinion though, it is not meant to upset any of their fans.    

I love this thread!

mike hunt wrote:

  rhyeking wrote: Elvis was, as Neil Peart once described, a divine windchime. He did not create the music or write the songs, but in performing it, he made it something greater than most other performers could. He existed at a time when many artists performed songs written and arranged by other people (professionals songwiters were the norm, were widely used and their songs performed by many different artists). There was a massive increase in the popularity of "black" music at the time, by way of jazz, gospel and blues. Black artists were making hits and mainstream record companies gladly had white artist record those song in an attempt to capitalize. But it wasn't that clear cut. White teens in the fifties often preferred the originals. Elvis grew up in the South and was impued with a love of blues and gospel. He didn't rip off black artists, he simply sang the songs he loved, better than most people, and did what everyone was doing (singing the same songs). As a performer, he was the first great natural showman, and every frontman since (Freddie, Bono, whomever) can thank him for setting the standard. In the fifties, it was par for the course to stand politely at the microphone (or sit on the stool) and sing. Elvis shook his hips and danced around and *that* was shocking and new. His record companies and management made Elvis Presley a commodity and a household name, but he could back up the hype with his ability to sing and peform. I'm not even a big Elvis fan, but he is the King of Rock & Roll for a reason, the same way Michael Jackson is the King of Pop for a reason: timing, talent and good publicity.

I'm not a big elvis guy either, and I also don't think his version of those songs are any better than the originals, (musically) but to say he was overated is not true. The man was truly a great singer, and like freddie could sing a wide range of music. country, gospel, rock,  that's what makes a singer great.  He's obviously the best performer in rock history.  What does piss me off a little is that the beatles, and elvis, the stones got rich playing black music (the true genious) but these genious musicians died piss poor.  I'v been listening too the blues lately, guys like howlin wolf, muddy waters. Those cats were truly brilliant for their time. Dare I say it, even more brilliant than the beatles.

Isle0fRed wrote: america doesnt like anything british or any nationality but if u see the signs all of the greatest stuff came from non-yankie countries the greatest scientist da vinci or entsien are they american bands zeplin, black sabbarth, acdc, are they american movies 2001, italin job (1969) the latter, america fucked it up i could go on

  rhyeking wrote:

      Isle0fRed wrote:   america doesnt like anything british or any nationality but if u see the signs all of the greatest stuff came from non-yankie countries the greatest scientist da vinci or entsien are they american bands zeplin, black sabbarth, acdc, are they american movies 2001, italin job (1969) the latter, america fucked it up i could go on  

There are so many things I have to say about the ignorance of the above post that I don't know where to begin and I don't have all night to completely destroy it with a well-countered argument. All I'm going to say is that so many countries on this planet, and so many people, have achieved great things throughout human history that to compare them is an exercise is stupidity and futility. America has given the world great things, flawed as it is. There are no countries whose history is free of blood-shed, injustice and man's inhumanity to man. I say this because there's no need for this to turn into a "Ways America is Screwed Up" thread. If you want a list of America's contributions to science, thumb through this site: link Musically, America gave us Blues, Jazz and Rock & Roll, amongst other things. Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath and AC/DC would not have existed with the influence of Blues. Great American artists include: Elvis Presley, Larry Williams, Muddy Waters, Bo Diddley, Louis Armstrong, Pete Seeger, Leadbelly, Johnny Cash, Howlin' Wolf, Aretha Franklin, Woody Gutherie, Bruce Springsteen, The Beach Boys, Roy Orbison, Nirvana, Pearl Jam...Sweet Jesus, the list could go on forever. The same is true for English music: Zeppelin, The Who, The Rolling Stones, The Kinks, The Animals, Queen, Small Faces, Mike Oldfield, The Shadows...on and on... While we're at, let's throw some Canadian music in there, huh? Gordon Lightfoot, Rush, Barenaked Ladies, Bryan Adams, The Guess Who... Austrailia? Since AC/DC came up, give Nick Cave and The Bad Seeds a listen. Most of the names I cited grew out of Blues, Jazz and American Folk. Music in the Twentieth Century fed off itself, defying the borders of countries, nationalities and is ever grewing. Films? You actually want to go there? Citizen Kane...an American movie...the greatest, most influential, cinema-altering film EVER MADE.  Anyone who calls this film overrated as absolutely no understanding history, politics and storytelling, not to mention art. There are thousands of great, important American films. There are likewise many films from other countries which are just as groundbreaking and historically relevant.

      qrock wrote:   On MSN website, Queen are among Oasis, The Beatles, Pink Floyd and Elvis for the Most Overrated Artists Ever.           Queen have been a major Rock Band for Many Years, since 1971 and have released 15 studio Albums. They are credited for selling over 300 million albums Worldwide, the best selling UK Single, Best Selling album in the UK and best live performance ever.       They are also noted for their unique style from Heavy Metal, to Opera, Ragtime to Funk, Arena Rock to Fantasy Heavy Progressive Rock from Queen II.       However the quote to why Queen is so overrated as follows:       "Music for People who have no interest in music. They are a novelty act in my eyes.....gimmicky tunes/lyrics. Terrible hair/tash, dreadful clothes.....and they have the best selling LP in Britain ever LOL....The Great British Public, Don't you just love em? link            

Soapy Gonad wrote: Queen may be over-rated, but I can't think of a single band more relevant than them consitently throughout a 30 year period. Its pretty cool to drive my Used Audi and listen to the old hits. 

Mr.Jingles wrote: Totally agree about Elvis. His only talent was being a good performer. He wasn't such a great singer, but had a distinctive voice. Come to think of it, he was the perfect white package RCA was looking for to sell black music.

whitequeen2 wrote: Queen over rated? If anything they are disrespected and not given enough airplay here in the States. We're force fed the Beatles, Stones, Pink Floyd, and others no where near the stature and talent of Queen.

Angeline wrote: I guess we have a completely different perspective here in England: they are played a lot, VH1 has queen days, every Christmas party, hen night or disco has don't stop me now as the playlist.  They really are, as Brian (or was it Roger?) once said, part of the furniture. 

      philip storey wrote:   I wont lose any sleep over this,music is all down to personal taste but when the great bands of the last 40years are talked about.Queen will be right up there and their record sales ,classic concerts will make sure that they will go down in history as one of the very best.[img=/images/smiley/msn/teeth_smile.gif][/img]